Renowned veteran journalist and former chairman of the Editorial Board of the New Nigerian Newspapers in Kaduna, Alhaji Abdulhamid Babatunde Agaka is dead. He died in Kaduna in his sleep last night, July 27 at the age of 66.
It was gathered that the seasoned journalist cum editor, who had lost his wife last month, died in his sleep at his residence in Kaduna.
He joined the service of the New Nigerian newspapers, the pioneer Northern newspaper based in Kaduna, in 1974 and rose through the ranks to become Chairman of its Editorial Board, from where he moved to another Kaduna-based newspaper, The Democrat newspaper published by late Malam Ismaila Isa Funtua as its Editor in 1988, till 1997.
He was born on February 26, 1956 and attended Capital School Kaduna, before proceeding to Barewa College Zaria and Government Secondary School Ilorin.
Abdulhamid Babatunde Agaka, in the bid for excellence in Journalism, attended several media trainings, workshops and conferences at home and abroad, and was an alumnus of the Nigerian Institute of Journalism, Lagos.
The late veteran journalist also held executive positions in the Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE), where he was a Fellow.
Alhaji Abdulhamid Babatunde Agaka, who was once the Secretary of the Jokolo Committee set up by then President Olusegun Obasanjo, in 1999, is survived by four children: Ahmad, Maryam, Halima and Abdulhamid (Jnr).
He is also survived by other siblings including Mallam Ismail Ila Agaka, a former Managing Director of Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF) and Ilyasu Baba Agaka, a Director at the Presidency among others.
Babatunde, renowned for his trenchant articles recently wrote about the seemingly endless war against Boko Haram and other security challenges.
It was learnt that his last article was widely read by policy, security and security top notchers. Some of those who read it actually called to commend Babatunde for his “patriotic” write-up.
We, in Greenbarge Reporters online newspaper, particularly the Editor-In-Chief/Chief Executive Officer, Yusuf Ozi Usman, were shocked at the death of Abdulhamid Babantunde. He was one of the mentors of Yusuf Ozi-Usman, who worked under him in Kano, when he (late Babatunde) was the State Editor of the New Nigerian newspapers. We condole with those he left behind, especially, his children.
Chief Judge of Akwa Ibom State, Justice Ekaette Obot has sent a lawyer, Inibehe Effiong, to jail for one month from the courtroom even as healso ordered the arrest of a Premium Times reporter, Saviour Imukudo, over a case of defamation between Akwa Ibom State governor, Udom Emmanuel and a lawyer, Leo Ekpenyong.
The jailed lawyer, a human rights lawyer, was handling a case for his client before the judge sent him to prison straight from the courtroom.
Shortly after the court sitting, the jailed lawyer announced his travails on Twitter: saying: “I have been sent to Uyo prison by the Chief Judge of Akwa Ibom State, Justice Ekaette Obot, for one month for defending Leo Ekpenyong in a libel suit filed by Governor Udom Emmanuel.”
The Premium Times reporter, Imukudo, was also arrested by the police in the same court on the orders of the Chief Judge. He was covering the court sitting when he was harassed and ordered out of the court before Justice Obot ordered his arrest.
It was gathered that the judge ordered Imukudo to leave the courtroom after he identified himself as a reporter with the Premium Times and that as he was walking out of the courtroom, the judge ordered a police officer to search him and confiscate his phone.
Meanwhile, the Coalition for Whistleblower Protection and Press Freedom (CWPPF) has condemned Imukodo’s arrest and has demanded the immediate release of the reporter and another journalist, John Adenekan.
In a statement by Programme Officer of the CWPPF, Stephanie Adams-Douglas, the Whistleblower said: “on Wednesday, July 27, Mr Imukodo, a reporter with Premium Times, covering a court proceeding, was first harassed and ushered out of the court before Judge Obot ordered his arrest.
“Sadly, this is not the first time journalists, media professionals, press freedom advocates and civil rights activists have been targets of assault by anti-democratic elements. Judge Obot has intentionally shown disregard for the Constitution which gives journalists the right to gather and disseminate information in the public interest.”
CWPPF condemned the raid by Nigerian police on the Abuja head office of the Peoples Gazette on July 23 and the arrest of Adenekan, an assistant managing editor.
According to the CWPPF: “these among several other attacks targeted at proactive individuals engaged in human rights and media freedom activism reflect the sustained assault on the civic space by elements resistant to being held accountable to the people.
“Specific case of the media, it is constitutionally mandated to hold the government and public office holders accountable to the people. For this reason, the Federal Government and Nigerians should see the news media and civil society groups as partners, not adversaries.
“While investigation is ongoing, we condemn the attacks on Mr Imukodo and Mr Adenekan and demand their unconditional release.”
The coalition said that it would continue to uphold its stance against any attack on human rights and press freedom in Nigeria and across the sub-Saharan region.
The Presidency has advised opposition Senators in the National Assembly to stop what it called: “babyish antics” by the staging of a walk out over the “ridiculous motion to impeach our President.”
In a statement late today, July 27, the senior special assistant to President Muhammadu Buhari on media and publicity, Malam Garba Shehu, commended the Senate President, Ahmad Lawan for refusing to entertain such impeachment debate.
Malam Garba Shehu said that instead of making a mockery out of voters by trying to imitate what they see in America, “the opposition would be well advised that their time would be better spent tackling the pressing issues Nigerians face, such as the current global cost of living crisis.
“Their continued failure to do so goes some way to explaining why they remain in opposition.
“In contrast, the President Muhammadu Buhari administration is committed to finding lasting solutions to the emerging security threats, including those left behind by the PDP in the South-South, the Northeast and throughout the federation. In the last 24 hours, two more Chibok girls were freed, in addition to the three brought home last week.
“These kinds of headline grabbing stunts for which the opposition is now well known serve no one, least of all their constituents. We would respectfully remind them that it is those same constituents that they were elected to serve, and are paid to do so with public money.
“We would welcome their collaboration in our efforts to solve the problems Nigerians face on a daily basis. No one is asking them to waste their time attempting to impeach a democratically elected President at the end of his second term – certainly not their constituents.
“They should ask themselves: do they want to be in government or do they want to be in the headlines?
“If they want to be in government they should start acting like it and stop undermining Nigerian voters.”
A group, the Buhari Media Organisation (BMO) has asked security agencies in the country not to ignore an interview granted the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) by Buba Galadima, a former close ally of President Muhammadu Buhari over the threat by terrorists to abduct the President.
In a statement today, July 27 by its Chairman Niyi Akinsiju and Secretary, Cassidy Madueke, the group drew the attention of the security agencies to the fact that Galadima spoke like someone who knows what the terrorists want, “and probably knows how to get it.”
The group said that the manner in which Galadima spoke on the possibility of the President being kidnapped soon, showed that the man knows more than he is telling the nation.
It said that Galadima has shown that he knows a lot more about the terrorists on rampage in some parts of the country than he is telling Nigerians.
“Our attention has been drawn to Buba Galadima’s recent interview with BBC Hausa service, and the confidence with which he spoke about terrorists abducting President Buhari.
“It is against this backdrop that we urge security agencies not to overlook him in the course of investigating the terrorists’ threat to abduct the President, ” it said.
“That the assertion came few days after what many Nigerians thought was an empty abduction threat by a terrorist group which attacked a Kaduna-bound train and is still holding 39 passengers since March, should give all patriots cause for concern.
“We heard him saying in that interview that bandits were disdainful of the Buhari administration and we wonder how he knew this, if not that he is in regular touch with the leadership of the criminals.
“Also, being a former ally of President Buhari and is likely to know his routine, we are concerned that Buba Galadima may have passed on some valuable information to the terrorists.”
The group said that the Buhari administration has not failed in securing the country even as it called on the authorities to step up their intelligence gathering capacity to counter the fresh wave of security challenges in the country.
Journalists and now a global media organization of repute, the BBC, which should know better, are becoming a tool for terrorists, even if unwittingly, by amplifying the faces, voices and stories of killers and marauders who are still operating with impunity across Nigeria.
The public interest argument seems to have been misunderstood, some may even say misrepresented, to enable sensationalist reporting that is very unlikely to be allowed on screens in the United Kingdom. By not upholding the same standards as they would uphold in the UK, in their work in Nigeria, the BBC Africa Eye producers in their latest documentary titled ‘The Bandits Warlords of Zamfara’ have provided a global platform to terrorists and can be accused of becoming an accomplice to terror in the name of reporting it.
When Communications Professor at the University of Toronto Mahmoud Eid coined the term Terroredia, in his book Exchanging Terrorism Oxygen for Media Airwaves, Eid argues that there is now a ‘relationship between terrorists and media professionals in which acts of terrorism and media coverage are exchanged, influenced, and fuelled by one another.’ Since it was written 7 years ago, it would appear the case Eid was trying to make is now quite self-evident, especially in Nigeria where increasingly, propaganda videos and statements by terror groups as well as features on terror leaders are finding their way into mainstream media. We can now easily identify, for example, the faces of the major kingpins responsible for the widespread kidnappings and killings that are occurring on a daily basis in the Northern part of Nigeria, no thanks to having their pictures and videos splashed all over the pages of newspapers and on our television screens almost as if they are Nollywood A-listers.
None of this has ‘helped’ our inept government, led by President Muhamadu Buhari, to find and arrest these blood-thirsty criminals. The ‘pressure’ has also not stopped the administration from playing ostrich and finding an effective way of tackling insecurity. These are some of the public interest arguments put forward by those defending the featuring of predatory criminals on national and now international media platforms.
The arguments also include an assertion that hearing from terrorists helps us better understand the conflicts and therefore come up with solutions. Under the guise of public interest, this is the argument that BBC Africa Eye seems to be presenting, to justify its decision to actively give copious screen time to self-confessed murderers and kidnappers, who are still actively involved in attacking communities, killing, kidnapping, pillaging and generally making life brutish and a living hell for the people of Nigeria’s North-western State of Zamfara and beyond.
The two promotional clips released for the documentary, the Bandits Warlords of Zamfara, feature a marauder who should remain nameless here, confirming that he was part of those who raided Jengebe girls’ secondary school in the state, abducting over 300 students with the attendant horror of these sorts of crimes normally entail, and releasing them, after the payment of ransom. Evidently, the BBC Africa Eye team also had no problem utilising footage that appears to have been shot by these self-confessed criminals because this makes it into the second trailer. No media of repute would take this decision because it is generally understood that these sorts of videos are recorded by terrorists for one thing and one thing only: propaganda.
Reports of the documentary in national newspapers also quote one of the featured criminals boasting, in the documentary, that he only kills, and doesn’t kidnap for ransom. This is the nature of the program that the ‘reputable’ BBC Africa Eye is positioning as having a public interest imperative.
To be clear, the current state of insecurity and all that it entails is the fault of the Federal Government, led by President Muhammadu Buhari, and he must be held responsible for the carnage and state of anarchy engulfing the nation. That does not however mean irresponsible reporting by the media, which after all should champion the common man, should not be challenged.
If terrorists were killing and kidnapping British citizens, especially young children, the BBC would not enable interviews by the perpetrators, particularly if they were still roaming footloose and fancy-free, without an iota of remorse for their crimes and also carrying out many more. The trauma to the psyche of the British public will be unbearable, and the BBC would not be willing to pay that price, or risk the legal consequences sure to ensue.
In the era of the Irish Republican Army, the IRA, for example, the group didn’t make it onto the airwaves of the BBC. Indeed, reporting of the activities of the political party seen as the political arm of the IRA, Sein Fein, was heavily censored. Every time they spoke, the BBC deleted their voices and replaced them with those of actors, in obedience to British Government directives which were put in place because the authorities believed publicity is like air for ‘terrorists’ groups, helping them to grow and thrive. And even though Sein Fein shared what many might argue is only an ideological position with the IRA, they were denied a presence on British airwaves in substantial ways.
Here in Nigeria, concerns about the impact the amplification of terrorists’ voices will have both on victims, their families and the public appear to be a secondary consideration to the BBC’s insistence on hearing from the bandits’ first-hand accounts and justification for their murderous activities.
There is no good argument that can justify the damage this is doing to the public that includes the school girls in Jangebe, who can now in perpetuity, watch the story of their abductions from the mouth of their abductors and relive the attendant trauma of that horrible crime.
For all of these school girls, victims and their families, the BBC Africa Eye has confirmed their attackers’ invincibility. By documenting and handing over on a platter of gold one of the most respected media brands in the world to justify their actions, the BBC has iconised violent men leading marauding militias that are killing, abducting, maiming and leaving terror in their wake across large sways of Nigeria and who are clearly neither sorry for their crime nor looking to stop anytime soon.
It is hard to see how this will not contribute to deepening fear, mistrust, hopelessness and damage to the national psyche while undoubtedly helping with recruitment, all ingredients that actively contribute to successful outcomes for terror groups.
The public’s right to know is a sacrosanct tenant of journalists who are not and should not be in the job of censoring news. Finding the balance between that and ensuring media platforms do not provide the oxygen of publicity for terrorists and criminals is not easy, but it is at these difficult junctures that good journalism needs to stand its ground.
Recognising the importance of getting it right globally, experts including those at the BBC have taken the trouble to develop guidelines for reporting difficult stories including stories of conflict and terrorism. The German Press Code for example says “in reporting actual and threatened acts of violence, the Press should carefully weigh the public’s interest in information against the interest of victims and other people involved. It should report on such incidents in an independent and authentic way, but not allow itself to be made the tool of criminals. Nor should it undertake independent attempts to mediate between criminals and the police. THERE MUST BE NO INTERVIEWS WITH PERPETRATORS DURING ACTS OF VIOLENCE.’’
The German guidelines are unequivocal about not giving airtime to criminals involved in ongoing criminal activities and for very good reason. The BBC’s editorial guidelines are more watery, perhaps explaining why the BBC Africa Eye team is able to be cavalier about such a critical issue. But even these guidelines say “any proposal to approach an organisation (or an individual member of an organisation) designated a ‘terrorist group’ by the Home Secretary under the Terrorism Acts, and any proposal to approach individuals or organisations responsible for acts of terror, to participate in our output must be referred in advance to Director Editorial Policy and Standard and also any proposal to broadcast content made by perpetrators of a hijacking, kidnapping, hostage-taking or siege must be referred to a senior editorial figure.’’
The questions to answer therefore include: did senior people in London at the BBC fully understood that they were authorizing the recording of terrorists who are still active and who between them have been responsible for the abduction, rape and killings of thousands of people including school children?
There are other questions.
When homeland terrorists committed the inconceivable crime of hacking British soldier Lee Rigby to death in May 2013, would the BBC have considered it in the public interest to interview these terrorists? To compare apples with apples, imagine that hero Rigby’s murderers were never held for their crimes, continued butchering people and collecting seven figure ransoms., would the BBC dare to send reporters to film the murderers gloating about collecting ransom, and then hold Twitter Spaces and bask in views, clicks and likes?
The answer is NO. The BBC would never dare.
Why then is the BBC okay to fund, then publicise the glorification of practicing murderers still butchering hundreds across Nigeria and the Chad Basin? How did this three-year disregard for African lives come about, and why is this acceptable?
By their own admission, the BBC Africa Eye producers claim their reporting occurred over three-years. This is clearly well before the crime against the school girls in Jangebe occurred. These bandits and their factions commit cross-border crimes. Therefore, as a matter of urgent national and regional security, other questions which the BBC must answer publicly, in the actual interest of the public include:
In all these years it was conducting these ‘investigations’ of terrorists, did the BBC harbour information on potential criminal or or actual crimes they happened an did the BBC withhold this information from the relevant African security authorities?
After the particular interviews in which the murderers admit their collection of ransoms, and committing acts of kidnap, did the BBC hand over any of this footage to the authorities, and do so in a timely manner?
What footage and information has the BBC handed over to law enforcement, since the publication of this documentary?
In covering a subset of criminals for three years, the BBC has brazenly admitted that it was shooting criminals before, during and after the commission of dastardly crimes that have destroyed generations present and unborn.
The BBC Africa Eye documentaries series have been designed specifically for release on social media platforms (Facebook and YouTube). Given the programme’s track record of dubious editorial decisions and accusations of unethical behaviour including by local reporters who worked with them, BBC managers in London should also explain if the decision to put this documentary out on social media was designed to ensure its producers are not held to the high global broadcast standards the BBC is known for and which are applicable to content broadcast within the UK?
When BBC Africa Eye did a story on drug addiction in Nigeria, there were attempts by a producer to sensationalize some of the reporting, to make it more gripping. On that occasion, he was working with a seasoned and brave journalist who pushed back.
When they did a story on Sex for Grades, the two reporters responsible for the story ended up trading blame on social media over sex for by-line allegations. Again, the producers didn’t come out smelling of roses.
An investigative report by them on a popular talk show host in Nigeria who is revered by millions saw the journalist who did that reporting flee his home together with his family as a result of threats to his life. The BBC failed in its duty of care to this local journalist and in the end fellow journalists had to rally around to provide him with safe spaces.
In all, the team at BBC Africa Eye appear to be striving to do reporting that would be unacceptable in the UK for being unethical and transparently against public interest.
The problem is they have capitalised on the justified anger of the people and the inconceivable failure of the government, to once again resurrect the ugliest vestiges of colonialism, which one had hoped were long buried.
The unfolding anarchy and violence in Nigeria are serious matters, and every attempt must be made to keep the public informed. A documentary that investigates and examines government failures while centring victims and their families would have done that.
Giving boastful, bloodthirsty criminals a global platform serves only two purposes. It provides free publicity for terror and enables the BBC to push viewership figures on social media.
It does nothing for public service. Even if it does not realise it, the BBC’s reputation for stellar public service journalism is being damaged.
Black lives, their humanity and national security, should matter more than clicks.
Hopefully someone in London will take note.
Kadaria Ahmed was a Senior Producer at the BBC in London and is now CEO at Radio Now 95.3FM Lagos
Former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Yakubu Dogara has described those who are supporting Muslim-Muslim Presidential ticket of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) as ungodly.
Dogara, a member of the party, stressed that the position of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), on the matter is the position of God, emphasizing that CAN’s position is not only the position of notable Christian leaders like Babachir David Lawal, the former Secretary to the Government of the Federation and many others who have spoken against it, but also God’s position.
The former speaker, who spoke today, July 27 at CAN’s 12th General Assembly and Leadership Transition programme, in Abuja, said: “we serve the God of justice, our God is righteous, our God is the author of diversity, and He wants as diverse as we are to come together.
“So, CAN’s position, as much as it is a righteous position, it is the position of all of us who love righteousness, justice, diversity and are working to harness it for the advancement of this country.”
Dogara, who is a member of the APC, said that anybody can say anything but that in as much as what “we are standing on is godly, any other position is ungodly. It is either you are for righteousness, inclusiveness, justice or you are against the unity of this great country.”
He said that for any change to be achieved in a country, the right leaders needed to be in place, insisting that “everyone has a talent to better the society and country.
“All of us are talented; talents are not to be hidden or silenced; they are to be used to impact and enhance development in a country.
“We will have to someday account for how we used the talents to repair and develop the earth.”
The United States has announced a vote of $55 million for Nigerians aimed at protecting the country and other most vulnerable nations from an escalating global food crisis.
A statement today, July 27, by the US Embassy in Nigeria said that money is the fulfillment of President Joe Biden’s recent pledge at the G-7 Leader’s Summit in Germany.
The statement said that the fund would be administered through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) under its agriculture, nutrition, and humanitarian assistance programmes and that it has been laid before the Congressional for approval.
It said that the funds will help to immediately address the economic, food, and nutrition needs of vulnerable communities in Nigeria that are most adversely impacted by higher food, fuel, and fertilizer prices.
According to the statement, the U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, Mary Beth Leonard has reaffirmed the commitment of the United States and the American people to improving the economic well-being and food security of all Nigerians.
“The United States is committed to mitigating the adverse effect of the current global food crisis on the people of Nigeria.
“We strongly support Nigeria’s economic prosperity and well-being, and our decades-long partnership with the Nigerian government, the private sector, and NGO community to address the country’s most urgent development and humanitarian needs.
“We empathize with the hardships and suffering of Nigerian citizens that have been exacerbated as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and its negative impact on food security, and we fully expect President Biden’s initiative will significantly soften the blow of these war-related international price shocks.”
The statement said that with this funding initiative, U.S. total investment internationally in combating the global food security crisis since the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will reach over $5.6 billion.
According to the statement, the United States will use every tool available to address the humanitarian and long-term impacts of Russia’s war and other such shocks on global food security and nutrition.
As Senators, mainly of the minority block from the Peeoples Democratic Party (PDP) moved to impeach President Muhammadu Buhari over the worsening insecurity in the country, the country’s minister of informstion, Lai Mohammed has described the move as unnecessary because the President is as concerned about the security situation as they.
The Senate minority, today, July 27, gave President Buhari six weeks to curb insecurity or face a formal notice of impeachment from them, even as the country’s information minister, Lai Mohammed described the move as unnecessary.
The minister, who reacted to the Senate move at a news briefing shortly after the Senate made its stand known said that the federal government s working round the clock, 24 hours, to ensure that the security situation is brought under control.
According to him, there is no need for such an ultimatum, as the government is doing all it can to address the security challenges in the country, saying: “I want to assure you that the President is aware of all these and as a matter of fact, I think tomorrow there’s going to be another Security Council meeting.
“So, it’s not a matter the President is taking lightly and like I’ll always say, some of the measures we’re going to take are not measures that you can discuss openly here, but we’re as concerned as you are, we’re not going to abandon our responsibility,” he said.
The minister also described the reported threat by terrorists to kidnap the president as laughable and mere propaganda.
“As to those who have issued threats to Mr President, I think it’s more of propaganda than anything. It’s laughable,” he said.
Lai Mohammed said that the Federal Executive Council (FEC), at its meeting today, approved a memo by the Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs, Disaster Management and Social Development, for a standard operation procedure on maintaining the civilian and humanitarian character of asylum seekers in Cameroon.
“You all know that due to the insurgency in Cameroon, Nigeria has witnessed an influx of Cameroonian asylum seekers and there are basic standard procedures for you to be granted status as an asylum seeker.
“This is what the council considered and approved today. And basically is that anybody from Cameroon who is seeking asylum in Nigeria must first convinced the authorities that he or she has actually renounced armed struggle, before you can even be considered as an asylum seeker.
“Also they are cases of some of them who have come even when they claim to have surrendered their arms, go back at times, to join the separatist movement in Cameroon.
“So, the procedure was explained and approved today that will evaluate the basic criteria to grant asylum.
“So, all we have done today is to establish the standard procedure to ensure that those who claim to be asylum seekers are actually not insurgents themselves that have come to destabilise Nigeria or people who will come and be launching attacks against their own country from the comfort of Nigeria.”
The minority members of the Senate had staged a walk out of plenary in the heat generated by the impeachment move, as the Senate President, Ahmad Lawan refused to allow a motion by Minority Leader, Philip Aduda to be discussed.
The Senators, who briefed newsmen after walking out of the Senate Chamber, insisted that they had during their closed-door session, which lasted for two hours, agreed that they would deliberate on rising insecurity and give Buhari an ultimatum to either address insecurity or be impeached.
They expressed anger that Lawan refused to abide by their resolution to debate the issue of insecurity after reverting to plenary from the closed door session.
The lawmakers were chanting “All we are saying, Buhari must go!”
Apart from Aduda, other Senators who walked out of the Senate Chambers and participated in the briefing include Enyinnaya Abaribe (APGA); George Sekibo (PDP); Mohammed Bulkachuwa (APC – Bauchi North); Betty Apiafi (PDP); Christopher Ekpenyong (PDP); Nicholas Tofowomo, Francis Alimikhena (PDP), Adamu Aliero (PDP), Ahmad Babba-Kaita (PDP); Ibrahim Shekarau (NNPP); Matthew Urhoghide (PDP) and Istifanus Gyang (PDP).
Aduda (FCT), had complained about the worsening security situation during plenary.
Rising under a point of order, which he did not cite, Aduda requested the chamber to give a six-week ultimatum to President Muhammadu Buhari to address the issue of insecurity or face impeachment.
“Mr. President, you may wish to recall that during the closed session, we discussed the issues as they relate to security in the country and all the issues around it.
“And we had also discussed that we are going to come back to plenary to discuss the efforts that have been made so far on the issue of security in the country, after which we give an ultimatum to the President that he resolves this issue, otherwise we give an impeachment notice.”
The Senate President, while ruling on Aduda’s point of order, faulted the minority leader for failing to put forward his request in accordance with the upper chamber’s rules which regulates its proceedings.
Lawan in his ruling said: “Minority Leader, when you’re going to come under a point of order, first, you’re supposed to cite the order.
“Secondly, you’re supposed to discuss with me what you’re going to raise on the floor. You didn’t.
“Thirdly, we have already passed that stage. So, at this moment, I really don’t know what the point of order is, as such it falls flat on its face.”
Following the comment by the Senate President, opposition Senators led by Aduda staged a walk out of the chambers during plenary.”
The Most Rev. Daniel Chukwudumebi Okoh has been elected the new president of the Christian Association of Nigeria, (CAN).
The announcement is contained in a statement by the CAN General Secretary, Mr. Joseph Daramola. Okoh is the General Superintendent of Christ Holy Church, also called Nation Builders (Odozi-Obodo). Meanwhile, it was gathered that the Kano-born and an indigene of Rivers State, Most Rev. Daniel Okoh is a de-tribalized Nigerian who has built friendship across religious and ethnic lines, not only in Nigeria but around the globe. He organises and participates in conversations and programmes that would bring about peaceful co-existence among the peoples of the world and sustainable development. Rev. Okon is coming in at a time there’s so much religious disharmony and tension especially between Christians and Muslims. It is expected that the new leadership of CAN, with his wide experiences in interfaith dialogues will take measures to reduce existing religious tensions, especially between Christians and Muslims in the country. Okoh was born on November 12, 1963 in Kano to Christian parents. He is a native of Ndoni in Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni Local Government Area of Rivers State, Nigeria. He is married to Ngozi and they are blessed with four children. Archbishop Daniel Okoh is a product of the famous Dennis Memorial Grammar School, Onitsha. In 1988, he graduated from the University of Port-Harcourt in Second Class Upper Division in Political Science and Education. Thereafter, he attended Christ Holy Church Seminary, Onitsha and was awarded a diploma in Theology. Since then he has undertaken many courses and participated in seminars that are relevant to his ministry work both in Nigeria and abroad. As the General Superintendent of Christ Holy Church International – an African Independent Church – he leads his denomination in ecumenical relations with other denominations in the body of Christ and engages with people of other religions in dialogue for peaceful co-existence and sustainable development. For more than 20 years, Most Rev. Daniel Okoh, has been actively involved in ecumenical relations and interfaith dialogue in and outside Nigeria through the following positions : International Chairman of the Organisation of African Instituted Churches (OAIC); National President of OAIC (Nigeria Region) (2005 – 2014); National Vice-President of Christian Association of Nigeria (2007 – 2013), former member, Board of Directors of Inter-Faith HIV/AIDS Coalition of Nigeria; Member, Governing Council of Good News Theological College and Seminary Accra, Ghana; Member, Nigeria Inter-Religious Council (NIREC);and Member ofthe Board of African Council of Religious Leaders – Religions for Peace. He is also a board member of Christian Solidarity Worldwide (Nigeria). Between 2000 and 2003 he was the only African representative in the Steering Committee of the International Forum on Multicultural Ministry which was initiated and sponsored by the Mission and Evangelism Team of the World Council of Churches. In the area of Politics and Governance, Archbishop Daniel Okoh was one of the six delegates that represented Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) in the National Political Reform Conference of 2005 organised by Federal Government of Nigeria. From 2009 – 2011 Most Rev. Daniel Okoh served on the board of National Orientation Agency (NOA) as an Institutional representative of Christian Association of Nigeria. CAN is made up of five blocs: Christian Council of Nigeria (CCN), Catholic Secretariat of Nigeria (CSN), Christian Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria (CPFN)/Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria (PFN), Organisation of African Instituted Churches (OAIC), (TEKAN and ECWA Fellowship).
The Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) has fixed August 6 for its 2022 Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) mop-up exercise.
JAMB announced this in its weekly bulletin released on Monday by Fabian Benjamin, its spokesperson.
Mop-up exercise is usually held for candidates who could not participate in the UTME during the period of the exercise for some verified reasons.
According to JAMB, the initiative was informed by its commitment to give equal opportunity to all candidates who crave tertiary education.
“JAMB, after every UTME exercise review various reports from officials in the field and video footages of the examination,” it read.
“The reviews are done by team of experts, with a view to detecting activities subversive of the examination process.
“It’s after all the reports have been collated and considered that the management would take critical decisions as to the necessity or otherwise of a mop-up examination for affected candidates.
“So, after a thorough analysis of the conduct of the 2022 UTME in 10 centres spread across five states of the federation where examination malpractice was established to had taken place, it became necessary to cancel the results of all the candidates who sat the examination in the affected 10 centres.”
JAMB said all candidates who sat for their UTME in the affected centres have been rescheduled for the mop-up exercise.
This, it said, was to avoid punishing “innocent candidates” indicted by such centres.
“It should be noted that candidates who, for whatever reasons, were absent at those centres are not eligible for the mop-up examination,” it added.
“Other categories of candidates rescheduled for the mop-up UTME are; 142 candidates who could not take the UTME due to finger-print peculiarities; 28 candidates who could not take the UTME due to technical problems in some centres; and 1,799 candidates with BVM failure who were recaptured at the centres.”
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Chief Judge of Akwa Ibom State, Justice Ekaette Obot has sent a lawyer, Inibehe Effiong, to jail for one month from the courtroom even as he also ordered the arrest of a Premium Times reporter, Saviour Imukudo, over a case of defamation between Akwa Ibom State governor, Udom Emmanuel and a lawyer, Leo Ekpenyong.
The BBC In Nigeria – Between Reporting And Propagating Terror, By Kadaria Ahmed
Journalists and now a global media organization of repute, the BBC, which should know better, are becoming a tool for terrorists, even if unwittingly, by amplifying the faces, voices and stories of killers and marauders who are still operating with impunity across Nigeria.
The public interest argument seems to have been misunderstood, some may even say misrepresented, to enable sensationalist reporting that is very unlikely to be allowed on screens in the United Kingdom. By not upholding the same standards as they would uphold in the UK, in their work in Nigeria, the BBC Africa Eye producers in their latest documentary titled ‘The Bandits Warlords of Zamfara’ have provided a global platform to terrorists and can be accused of becoming an accomplice to terror in the name of reporting it.
When Communications Professor at the University of Toronto Mahmoud Eid coined the term Terroredia, in his book Exchanging Terrorism Oxygen for Media Airwaves, Eid argues that there is now a ‘relationship between terrorists and media professionals in which acts of terrorism and media coverage are exchanged, influenced, and fuelled by one another.’ Since it was written 7 years ago, it would appear the case Eid was trying to make is now quite self-evident, especially in Nigeria where increasingly, propaganda videos and statements by terror groups as well as features on terror leaders are finding their way into mainstream media. We can now easily identify, for example, the faces of the major kingpins responsible for the widespread kidnappings and killings that are occurring on a daily basis in the Northern part of Nigeria, no thanks to having their pictures and videos splashed all over the pages of newspapers and on our television screens almost as if they are Nollywood A-listers.
None of this has ‘helped’ our inept government, led by President Muhamadu Buhari, to find and arrest these blood-thirsty criminals. The ‘pressure’ has also not stopped the administration from playing ostrich and finding an effective way of tackling insecurity. These are some of the public interest arguments put forward by those defending the featuring of predatory criminals on national and now international media platforms.
The arguments also include an assertion that hearing from terrorists helps us better understand the conflicts and therefore come up with solutions. Under the guise of public interest, this is the argument that BBC Africa Eye seems to be presenting, to justify its decision to actively give copious screen time to self-confessed murderers and kidnappers, who are still actively involved in attacking communities, killing, kidnapping, pillaging and generally making life brutish and a living hell for the people of Nigeria’s North-western State of Zamfara and beyond.
The two promotional clips released for the documentary, the Bandits Warlords of Zamfara, feature a marauder who should remain nameless here, confirming that he was part of those who raided Jengebe girls’ secondary school in the state, abducting over 300 students with the attendant horror of these sorts of crimes normally entail, and releasing them, after the payment of ransom. Evidently, the BBC Africa Eye team also had no problem utilising footage that appears to have been shot by these self-confessed criminals because this makes it into the second trailer. No media of repute would take this decision because it is generally understood that these sorts of videos are recorded by terrorists for one thing and one thing only: propaganda.
Reports of the documentary in national newspapers also quote one of the featured criminals boasting, in the documentary, that he only kills, and doesn’t kidnap for ransom. This is the nature of the program that the ‘reputable’ BBC Africa Eye is positioning as having a public interest imperative.
To be clear, the current state of insecurity and all that it entails is the fault of the Federal Government, led by President Muhammadu Buhari, and he must be held responsible for the carnage and state of anarchy engulfing the nation. That does not however mean irresponsible reporting by the media, which after all should champion the common man, should not be challenged.
If terrorists were killing and kidnapping British citizens, especially young children, the BBC would not enable interviews by the perpetrators, particularly if they were still roaming footloose and fancy-free, without an iota of remorse for their crimes and also carrying out many more. The trauma to the psyche of the British public will be unbearable, and the BBC would not be willing to pay that price, or risk the legal consequences sure to ensue.
In the era of the Irish Republican Army, the IRA, for example, the group didn’t make it onto the airwaves of the BBC. Indeed, reporting of the activities of the political party seen as the political arm of the IRA, Sein Fein, was heavily censored. Every time they spoke, the BBC deleted their voices and replaced them with those of actors, in obedience to British Government directives which were put in place because the authorities believed publicity is like air for ‘terrorists’ groups, helping them to grow and thrive. And even though Sein Fein shared what many might argue is only an ideological position with the IRA, they were denied a presence on British airwaves in substantial ways.
Here in Nigeria, concerns about the impact the amplification of terrorists’ voices will have both on victims, their families and the public appear to be a secondary consideration to the BBC’s insistence on hearing from the bandits’ first-hand accounts and justification for their murderous activities.
There is no good argument that can justify the damage this is doing to the public that includes the school girls in Jangebe, who can now in perpetuity, watch the story of their abductions from the mouth of their abductors and relive the attendant trauma of that horrible crime.
For all of these school girls, victims and their families, the BBC Africa Eye has confirmed their attackers’ invincibility. By documenting and handing over on a platter of gold one of the most respected media brands in the world to justify their actions, the BBC has iconised violent men leading marauding militias that are killing, abducting, maiming and leaving terror in their wake across large sways of Nigeria and who are clearly neither sorry for their crime nor looking to stop anytime soon.
It is hard to see how this will not contribute to deepening fear, mistrust, hopelessness and damage to the national psyche while undoubtedly helping with recruitment, all ingredients that actively contribute to successful outcomes for terror groups.
The public’s right to know is a sacrosanct tenant of journalists who are not and should not be in the job of censoring news. Finding the balance between that and ensuring media platforms do not provide the oxygen of publicity for terrorists and criminals is not easy, but it is at these difficult junctures that good journalism needs to stand its ground.
Recognising the importance of getting it right globally, experts including those at the BBC have taken the trouble to develop guidelines for reporting difficult stories including stories of conflict and terrorism. The German Press Code for example says “in reporting actual and threatened acts of violence, the Press should carefully weigh the public’s interest in information against the interest of victims and other people involved. It should report on such incidents in an independent and authentic way, but not allow itself to be made the tool of criminals. Nor should it undertake independent attempts to mediate between criminals and the police. THERE MUST BE NO INTERVIEWS WITH PERPETRATORS DURING ACTS OF VIOLENCE.’’
The German guidelines are unequivocal about not giving airtime to criminals involved in ongoing criminal activities and for very good reason. The BBC’s editorial guidelines are more watery, perhaps explaining why the BBC Africa Eye team is able to be cavalier about such a critical issue. But even these guidelines say “any proposal to approach an organisation (or an individual member of an organisation) designated a ‘terrorist group’ by the Home Secretary under the Terrorism Acts, and any proposal to approach individuals or organisations responsible for acts of terror, to participate in our output must be referred in advance to Director Editorial Policy and Standard and also any proposal to broadcast content made by perpetrators of a hijacking, kidnapping, hostage-taking or siege must be referred to a senior editorial figure.’’
The questions to answer therefore include: did senior people in London at the BBC fully understood that they were authorizing the recording of terrorists who are still active and who between them have been responsible for the abduction, rape and killings of thousands of people including school children?
There are other questions.
When homeland terrorists committed the inconceivable crime of hacking British soldier Lee Rigby to death in May 2013, would the BBC have considered it in the public interest to interview these terrorists? To compare apples with apples, imagine that hero Rigby’s murderers were never held for their crimes, continued butchering people and collecting seven figure ransoms., would the BBC dare to send reporters to film the murderers gloating about collecting ransom, and then hold Twitter Spaces and bask in views, clicks and likes?
The answer is NO. The BBC would never dare.
Why then is the BBC okay to fund, then publicise the glorification of practicing murderers still butchering hundreds across Nigeria and the Chad Basin? How did this three-year disregard for African lives come about, and why is this acceptable?
By their own admission, the BBC Africa Eye producers claim their reporting occurred over three-years. This is clearly well before the crime against the school girls in Jangebe occurred. These bandits and their factions commit cross-border crimes. Therefore, as a matter of urgent national and regional security, other questions which the BBC must answer publicly, in the actual interest of the public include:
In all these years it was conducting these ‘investigations’ of terrorists, did the BBC harbour information on potential criminal or or actual crimes they happened an did the BBC withhold this information from the relevant African security authorities?
After the particular interviews in which the murderers admit their collection of ransoms, and committing acts of kidnap, did the BBC hand over any of this footage to the authorities, and do so in a timely manner?
What footage and information has the BBC handed over to law enforcement, since the publication of this documentary?
In covering a subset of criminals for three years, the BBC has brazenly admitted that it was shooting criminals before, during and after the commission of dastardly crimes that have destroyed generations present and unborn.
The BBC Africa Eye documentaries series have been designed specifically for release on social media platforms (Facebook and YouTube). Given the programme’s track record of dubious editorial decisions and accusations of unethical behaviour including by local reporters who worked with them, BBC managers in London should also explain if the decision to put this documentary out on social media was designed to ensure its producers are not held to the high global broadcast standards the BBC is known for and which are applicable to content broadcast within the UK?
When BBC Africa Eye did a story on drug addiction in Nigeria, there were attempts by a producer to sensationalize some of the reporting, to make it more gripping. On that occasion, he was working with a seasoned and brave journalist who pushed back.
When they did a story on Sex for Grades, the two reporters responsible for the story ended up trading blame on social media over sex for by-line allegations. Again, the producers didn’t come out smelling of roses.
An investigative report by them on a popular talk show host in Nigeria who is revered by millions saw the journalist who did that reporting flee his home together with his family as a result of threats to his life. The BBC failed in its duty of care to this local journalist and in the end fellow journalists had to rally around to provide him with safe spaces.
In all, the team at BBC Africa Eye appear to be striving to do reporting that would be unacceptable in the UK for being unethical and transparently against public interest.
The problem is they have capitalised on the justified anger of the people and the inconceivable failure of the government, to once again resurrect the ugliest vestiges of colonialism, which one had hoped were long buried.
The unfolding anarchy and violence in Nigeria are serious matters, and every attempt must be made to keep the public informed. A documentary that investigates and examines government failures while centring victims and their families would have done that.
Giving boastful, bloodthirsty criminals a global platform serves only two purposes. It provides free publicity for terror and enables the BBC to push viewership figures on social media.
It does nothing for public service. Even if it does not realise it, the BBC’s reputation for stellar public service journalism is being damaged.
Black lives, their humanity and national security, should matter more than clicks.
Hopefully someone in London will take note.